Glenn Beck's 'Obama in Pee-Pee' rejected from Ebay as it reaches $11,000

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

On Tuesday, famed conservative commentator-talk show personality Glenn Beck offered an art piece which he calls “Obama in Pee Pee” - a toy-like piece depicting President Barack Obama in a jar of liquid that was initially alleged to be Glenn Beck’s urine as his response to artwork portraying President Barack Obama as Jesus Christ.

Listening to this on the radio as-it-happened was frickin' hilarious!!

Why is it that no one ever says what needs to be said on this issue? You can put whatever painting you want in your backyard or in your house or in your owned and operated place of business or on your website or even on your TV channel. But if tax dollars have to fund your creation, it needs to be kosher! This is not about Christians being easily offended either. There are images of pagan gods all over museums, but can you imagine is someone tried to re-portray George Bush as say, Vishnu? Supposing they weren't laughed out for even proposing the piece, actually I would support the piece being removed if the Hindus had a problem with it.

Why is it that no one ever says what needs to be said on this issue? You can put whatever painting you want in your backyard or in your house or in your owned and operated place of business or on your website or even on your TV channel. But if tax dollars have to fund your creation, it needs to be kosher! This is not about Christians being easily offended either. There are images of pagan gods all over museums, but can you imagine is someone tried to re-portray George Bush as say, Vishnu? Supposing they weren't laughed out for even proposing the piece, actually I would support the piece being removed if the Hindus had a problem with it.

I'd take this a step further and posit that there is no reason for tax dollars to fund artists, period. I don't care if it's children's stories, the government's got no business funding any one artist over any other.

The only exception I'd make is for the purchase or commissioning of artwork by a government agency, for placement in a government building; like a battle scene for the lobby of a department in Pentagon. And then only when the budget is balanced, and the national debt is at a level that could be paid off in a couple of election cycles.

I was curious as to why they rejected it. Here's the reason they gave:

Sounds legit, especially since Beck claimed it was Barry in number one. Maybe he can get an NEA grant and take it on tour.

From E Bay's perspective, the potential liability of auctioning off bodily fluids is pretty scary. Now, if he'd done what Serrano had done and simply photographed it, and then auctioned the photo, E Bay would just be facilitating another auction of "art".

Originally Posted by ReinMan

I'd take this a step further and posit that there is no reason for tax dollars to fund artists, period. I don't care if it's children's stories, the government's got no business funding any one artist over any other.

The only exception I'd make is for the purchase or commissioning of artwork by a government agency, for placement in a government building; like a battle scene for the lobby of a department in Pentagon. And then only when the budget is balanced, and the national debt is at a level that could be paid off in a couple of election cycles.

The liberals who complain about government getting involved in deciding what constitutes art never think beyond the immediate ideal of liberal government, which is "gimme, gimme, gimme." I used to have a great time explaining to liberals that there are liberal arguments against arts funding, and then watching their heads explode. If congress appropriates funds for something, then they have an oversight responsibility as stewards of the public treasury. Appropriating money for art means that congress has to decide what constitutes art so that they know what they are funding. The fact of public funding is what turned Jesse Helms into an art critic back in the day. Without that, he wouldn't have bothered weighing in. Basically, government funding of art leads to governmental dictates on the content of art. This leads to one of the great hypocrisies of art elites, which is that they have no problem with Democrats dictating what art is, but they have a real problem with Republicans doing it.

The second argument against public funding is that, while liberals want to fund avant garde art that hasn't reached the public, most government employees, even if they are sincerely trying to fund new, avant garde art, are not in a position to know what is cutting edge. They have to hire experts, and those experts are going to be recommended based on their credentials, but since credentialed experts are already part of the arts establishment, public funding ends up subsidizing the status quo, rather than innovation or rebellion. It entrenches a permanent, static arts bureaucracy that is adept at spending money on its cronies, but lacks any knowledge of art beyond its own provincial tastes. In order to pretend that the art that they subsidize isn't hackneyed, derivative establishment work, the administrators look for art that offends and shocks, rather than informs and elevates. Thus, we get Piss Christ and similarly scatological drivel from untalented schlock artists.

I'd take this a step further and posit that there is no reason for tax dollars to fund artists, period. I don't care if it's children's stories, the government's got no business funding any one artist over any other.

The only exception I'd make is for the purchase or commissioning of artwork by a government agency, for placement in a government building; like a battle scene for the lobby of a department in Pentagon. And then only when the budget is balanced, and the national debt is at a level that could be paid off in a couple of election cycles.

Fantasy. A good fantasy and I'd like to stay in such a world, but it's still a fantasy. We still live in a world where this is art: